Technical considerations of multi-parametric tissue outcome prediction methods in acute ischemic stroke patients.


Journal

Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
13 09 2019
Historique:
received: 01 08 2018
accepted: 23 08 2019
entrez: 15 9 2019
pubmed: 15 9 2019
medline: 15 12 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Decisions regarding acute stroke treatment rely heavily on imaging, but interpretation can be difficult for physicians. Machine learning methods can assist clinicians by providing tissue outcome predictions for different treatment approaches based on acute multi-parametric imaging. To produce such clinically viable machine learning models, factors such as classifier choice, data normalization, and data balancing must be considered. This study gives comprehensive consideration to these factors by comparing the agreement of voxel-based tissue outcome predictions using acute imaging and clinical parameters with manual lesion segmentations derived from follow-up imaging. This study considers random decision forest, generalized linear model, and k-nearest-neighbor machine learning classifiers in conjunction with three data normalization approaches (non-normalized, relative to contralateral hemisphere, and relative to contralateral VOI), and two data balancing strategies (full dataset and stratified subsampling). These classifier settings were evaluated based on 90 MRI datasets from acute ischemic stroke patients. Distinction was made between patients recanalized using intraarterial and intravenous methods, as well as those without successful recanalization. For primary quantitative comparison, the Dice metric was computed for each voxel-based tissue outcome prediction and its corresponding follow-up lesion segmentation. It was found that the random forest classifier outperformed the generalized linear model and the k-nearest-neighbor classifier, that normalization did not improve the Dice score of the lesion outcome predictions, and that the models generated lesion outcome predictions with higher Dice scores when trained with balanced datasets. No significant difference was found between the treatment groups (intraarterial vs intravenous) regarding the Dice score of the tissue outcome predictions.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31519923
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-49460-y
pii: 10.1038/s41598-019-49460-y
pmc: PMC6744509
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

13208

Références

Ann Neurol. 1999 Oct;46(4):568-78
pubmed: 10514093
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 12;372(11):1019-30
pubmed: 25671798
Methods Inf Med. 2014;53(6):469-81
pubmed: 25301390
Radiology. 2009 Jan;250(1):184-92
pubmed: 19017923
Stroke. 2018 Jun;49(6):1394-1401
pubmed: 29720437
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2015 Sep;35(9):1397-405
pubmed: 26154867
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 11;372(24):2296-306
pubmed: 25882510
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2017 Aug;37(8):2728-2741
pubmed: 27798267
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018 Oct;39(10):1776-1784
pubmed: 29419402
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2018 Sep;38(9):1500-1516
pubmed: 28345479
Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2011 May;21(2):259-83, x
pubmed: 21640299
Stroke. 2001 Apr;32(4):933-42
pubmed: 11283394
J Neurosurg. 2018 May 1;:1-8
pubmed: 29749914
PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e22626
pubmed: 21853039
Int J Stroke. 2015 Apr;10(3):348-53
pubmed: 23802548
Magn Reson Med. 2007 Dec;58(6):1232-41
pubmed: 17969025
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 11;372(24):2285-95
pubmed: 25882376
Transl Stroke Res. 2014 Jun;5(3):415-421
pubmed: 24500786
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Aug;95(35):e4702
pubmed: 27583902
N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 22;378(8):708-718
pubmed: 29364767
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001 Aug;22(7):1260-7
pubmed: 11498412
Stroke. 2001 Nov;32(11):2486-91
pubmed: 11692005
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Aug;20(2):201-7
pubmed: 15269944
Stroke. 2006 May;37(5):1211-6
pubmed: 16574931
Stroke. 2018 Apr;49(4):912-918
pubmed: 29540608
Int J Mol Sci. 2012;13(9):11753-72
pubmed: 23109881
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 10;9(2):e88225
pubmed: 24520356
Magn Reson Med. 2006 Jul;56(1):187-97
pubmed: 16724299
Stroke. 2017 May;48(5):1271-1277
pubmed: 28389614
J R Soc Interface. 2018 Apr;15(141):
pubmed: 29618526
Magn Reson Med. 2000 Sep;44(3):466-73
pubmed: 10975900
Int J Stroke. 2016 Aug;11(6):701-16
pubmed: 27462090
Stroke. 2015 Sep;46(9):2591-8
pubmed: 26251241
Stroke. 2009 Jun;40(6):2055-61
pubmed: 19359626
Neurol Sci. 2015 Oct;36(10):1777-83
pubmed: 25981225
Radiology. 2013 Feb;266(2):575-82
pubmed: 23143020
Stroke. 2002 Jan;33(1):79-86
pubmed: 11779893
JAMA. 2016 Sep 27;316(12):1279-88
pubmed: 27673305
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 1;372(1):11-20
pubmed: 25517348
Korean J Radiol. 2005 Apr-Jun;6(2):64-74
pubmed: 15968144
Stroke. 2009 Sep;40(9):3006-11
pubmed: 19608995
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 12;372(11):1009-18
pubmed: 25671797
Arch Neurol. 2001 Apr;58(4):613-7
pubmed: 11295992
J Med Phys. 2008 Oct;33(4):162-70
pubmed: 19893711
Artif Intell Med. 2005 Mar;33(3):223-36
pubmed: 15811787
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013 Sep;34(9):1697-703
pubmed: 23538410
Proceedings (IEEE Int Conf Bioinformatics Biomed). 2015 Nov;2015:1316-1321
pubmed: 28919983
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998 Jan-Feb;22(1):153-65
pubmed: 9448780
Med Image Anal. 2017 Jan;35:250-269
pubmed: 27475911
Stroke. 2015 Oct;46(10):2795-9
pubmed: 26306755
Stroke. 2009 Feb;40(2):469-75
pubmed: 19109547
Lancet Neurol. 2018 Oct;17(10):895-904
pubmed: 30264728
Stroke. 2008 Jan;39(1):75-81
pubmed: 18063829
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 4;378(1):11-21
pubmed: 29129157
Stroke. 2015 Oct;46(10):3020-35
pubmed: 26123479
Magn Reson Med. 2003 Jul;50(1):164-74
pubmed: 12815691
Stroke. 2013 Jan;44(1):73-9
pubmed: 23233383
Int J Stroke. 2018 Jun;13(4):348-361
pubmed: 29171362
Neurology. 2009 Mar 31;72(13):1140-5
pubmed: 19332690
Stroke. 2011 May;42(5):1255-60
pubmed: 21493917
Radiologe. 2018 Nov;58(Suppl 1):20-23
pubmed: 29808241
Stroke. 2010 Oct;41(10 Suppl):S72-4
pubmed: 20876510
Lancet. 2016 Apr 23;387(10029):1723-31
pubmed: 26898852
JAMA Neurol. 2016 Jan;73(1):43-9
pubmed: 26524074
Stroke. 2008 Oct;39(10):2765-8
pubmed: 18635854

Auteurs

Anthony J Winder (AJ)

Department of Radiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.

Susanne Siemonsen (S)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Fabian Flottmann (F)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Götz Thomalla (G)

Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Jens Fiehler (J)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Nils D Forkert (ND)

Department of Radiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. nils.forkert@ucalgary.ca.
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. nils.forkert@ucalgary.ca.
Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. nils.forkert@ucalgary.ca.
Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. nils.forkert@ucalgary.ca.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH